The Big Questions

Recently, Pine Hills resident Virgina Hammer wrote a letter to the editor that was published in the Times Union. She expressed a bit of meeting fatigue, and noted that there seemed to be few visible results from many of the neighborhood planning processes that have happened in Albany.

Her frustration is understandable. Plans take as much energy to implement, if not more, than they do to make, and small plans that don't come with implementation funding or any kind of change in the systems that affect things like vacant properties often don't result in very many visible results.

It can be true that if the planning board is respecting those plans, the plans may be quietly deterring inappropriate development. Or they can be used as organizing tools in zoning or development fights: The Buckingham Pond neighborhood used the contents of its plan as one part of their fight an apartment building on Krumkill Road in 2003. Others, of course, like the Park South plan, are part of a very specific initiative with developers on the hook to make significant changes.

A comprehensive plan will be a little different from all of these smaller plans. First, it is more official. It has standards governed by the state (I've copied the relevant regulations below), and the state says that a city's land use regulations must be in accordance with the plan.

Now, New York's law is, according to James C. Schwab, AICP, of the American Planning Association, relatively weak in that it doesn't require that the comp plan be internally consistent (with other citywide plans like capital spending), horizontally consistent (with neighboring jurisdiction's plans), or vertically consistent (down to neighborhoods, up to region or state). But at the very least the zoning has to match, and we should aim for the higher standards. Even unofficially, if it has the appropriate citywide involvement and publicity, it will have more visibility and momentum behind it, which can help lead to better implementation.

Also, with a comp plan there's a potential to address issues that should be looked at beyond a neighborhood scale but can have real effects on neighborhoods: Revamping the systems for dealing with abandoned property, which is a problem in many neighborhoods, for example. Thinking about downtown and Harriman at the same time in terms of economic development. Discussing transportation, including bicycle friendliness. Waste disposal. Considering how neighborhoods relate to each other.

Of course all the work that went into existing smaller plans shouldn't go to waste: They should influence the comp plan. (And possibly, in the end, be influenced by it.) To set the stage, therefore, I'm going to attempt over the next several weeks to give an overview of the state of the city's various plans.

(Also, quick clarification: Hammer wrote "Now it's the Common Council and its comprehensive plan for Albany. Wait a minute. What about the grant the city just got for a group of planners and architects to come to Albany, talk to neighborhood representatives and issue its own plan?" The SDAT team will issue a report and some recommendations to help us plan, but they won't make their own full plan. If we do this right we can use them as part of the comp plan process, not as a competing one.)

---
New York's Comprehensive Planning Statute:

Seeing Ourselves in Context

Context is good. While every place has its own unique attributes, it's ridiculous to ignore the larger economic and demographic trends that are affecting us along with dozens of other rust belt cities.

And so, the Brookings Institution's Restoring Prosperity report, released this week, should be considered essential reading for anyone who cares about the future of Capital Region cities. I know conversation has begun on it already, but I wanted to wait to post until I'd had a chance to read the whole thing (call me old-fashioned. Man, I hate reading reports in pdf, even if it does save trees. But I did it).

The report is focused especially on the state role in leveling the playing field for "older industrial cities," though it has some pointed words for local administrations as well. (It's hard to come up with a moniker for an artificial grouping you've chosen to study that's not goofy, but I'm at least glad they gave up on their working term of "weak-market." It's accurate, but so, well, weak. And wonkish.)

Anyhow, the report spends a good amount of time detailing all the trends that make this a good time to be focusing on city revitalization. That part is refreshing to read, especially for those of us in a region that seems to have a startling optimism deficit compared to our actual assets. For just one example, the people who have begun moving back into cities since the '90s are much more educated than the population as a whole. And "density is a primary purpose of cities, and [in the new knowledge economy] clusterings of talented people are a prime driver of economic growth."

(Note: I know that education and talent are not  a one-to-one correlation. Neither is wealth: there are apparently, a lot of billionaires with no degree at all. However, for the rest of us peons, the "good" employers tend to be looking for a workforce with some schoolin'.)

Anyhow, Brookings proposes an agenda and makes some concrete suggestions. I recommend reading it yourself, but there are a couple of money quotes in there that the Capital Region might want to think long and hard about:

"Local leaders must make the competent, clean, transparent, and effective administration of government operations and services their highest priority. In short, this means enhancing the way in which city officials and departments interface with residents and businesses, improving how the day to
day 'behind the scenes' work of government gets carried out, measuring city performance over time, and
ensuring accountability when expectations aren’t met." (Note: even the advent of Sematech will not exempt us from needing an accountable, efficient government. If anything, it will be more important.)

"State-imposed tax systems are often not universally appropriate for all localities, however, many of which might benefit from more flexibility in their revenue raising options, and/or from a greater ability to share revenues with wealthier communities who may use city services and facilities without paying the costs." (Italics mine. Nice to see your own analysis supported, even in passing.)

"Too often, cities’ economic development policies are more about chasing after the latest fads than strategically developing and implementing plans that capitalize on their unique assets, link to their larger metropolitan economy, and have the potential to widely benefit local residents. The proliferation of stadium and convention center building over the past 15 years illustrates this trend. Even with hard evidence that such projects rarely pay the expected dividends, city leaders continue to pursue them."

"Older industrial cities cannot get ahead without working to alleviate poverty and increase the opportunities and wealth of their existing residents—without, in other words, growing the middle class from within."

The report does get down to at least some brass tacks—I think their tentative fiscal policy ideas for Newark, NJ, are fascinating, especially letting them opt out of the (failing yet constantly renewed) urban enterprise zone program, but keep the different in increase sales taxes.

In terms of working on comprehensive planning for Albany, the third and fifth points of their five-point agenda (I've copied the short version below)—"transform the physical landscape" and "create neighborhoods of choice"—are obviously quite relevant.

Once Albany has its vision for itself, it will need to call on the state as a partner to clear away barriers to implementation, and Restoring Prosperity will be a good piece of that conversation.

Pine Who?

I just gave the city's application for the SDAT grant another read. It is full of exciting and important issues and ideas, from bus rapid transit to green building standards.

But there is nonetheless one rather glaring omission. Under a list of issues that covers air & water quality, energy efficiency, transportation, housing, revitalization, public policy/planning/land use and public spaces, there's not a single mention of the Pine Bush. Not one. In fact, the only time the Pine Bush is mentioned in the whole application is when the Pine Bush Preserve Commission is listed as participant in the process. It doesn't even show up in the discussion of the city's geography. If I'd been the Pine Bush Preserve Commission, I'd've had some words to say before signing off on one of the identically worded letters of support attached to the application.

Now, there's already far more in that application than can be addressed by the SDAT process. Still, it's rather stunning to have within your borders an extremely rare ecosystem that is a draw for biologists all over the country and home to rare and endangered species, and which has been the subject of a massive decades-long conservation effort, dozens of lawsuits, and a bitter controversy over the expansion of the city landfill, and not mention it at all. (For that matter, it's also pretty crazy to have an impending waste crisis and not mention it in a sustainability assessment beyond one euphemistic line about evaluating "landfill efficiency.")

If the tension between landfill and preservation in the Pine Bush isn't a sustainability challenge, I don't know what is. I'm sympathetic to the idea that improving the rest of the city in all the ways that are listed is one important piece of reducing the development pressures on the Pine Bush. But even if that works in the long run, that alone won't ensure that we reach the goal of an ecologically viable preserve.  It needs direct attention. And if done right, it could support the overall economy and revitalization of the whole city. The Pine Bush is an asset, not just a challenge.

This is an issue that screams for some outside perspective. Though it shouldn't be the only thing we talk about, it would be great to have a member of our SDAT team who could bring some expertise to bear on this thorny issue.

Unfortunately, it is hard to imagine that it's not precisely the political thorniness of the issue that kept it out of the application. Could admitting that protecting the Pine Bush needs serious discussion be too much like conceding a point for some in the city administration? If so, that's sad, and a bad portent.  If we're going to make a solid plan for revitalizing this city, we can't avoid major topics because they've become hot potatoes. Yet another reason that the agenda should be set by a public process.

I was glad, at least, to hear that while they didn't actually get to visit the Pine Bush on their preliminary SDAT visit, Alan and Erin "heard a lot about it" and are considering at least the landfill question to be one of the items on the agenda. I know I'm not the only one who is eager to get into that conversation.

First impressions

In the middle of their preliminary SDAT visit, I asked Alan Mallach and Erin Simmons for some first impressions of Albany. Obviously it was something of an unfair question, given that they hadn't even gotten to see all of the city yet, but I thought their responses were interesting to ponder:

• It's easy for those of us who know what we've lost to bemoan the state of historic preservation in the city. But apparently we're still doing better than many places. Mallach noted that many parts of the city "the quality of the buildings and the fabric is unbelievably good" and he was surprised how much was left. Simmons, whose background is in preservation, agreed, saying "this is like heaven."
• In a related point that feels like it should be obvious but I might have forgotten to list it if I were coming up with a list of the city's assets, Mallach praised all the panoramic vistas that result from our topography.
• A model of diplomacy, Mallach did also note that he had been trying think of any other city he knew of that was "blessed with two monuments to misguided '60s and '70s modernism" (the Empire State Plaza and the uptown SUNY campus).
• He also observed how strikingly the city is cut off from its waterfront, calling the pedestrian bridge "a gesture" that no one would end up at unless it had been their specific intended destination. Though he was not in the business of making recommendations—that will be up to the charette attendants and in conjunction with the team they assemble—Mallach did note that there is a nationwide movement to take down elevated waterfront highways and make boulevards out of them. (Though it's counter-intuitive, this does not actually automatically create traffic congestion. Often the opposite. In fact, in a San Francisco neighborhood that took down a highway they joke about all the previous traffic disappearing into a hole in the ground.)
• The Harriman campus is also an unusual opportunity for large-scale in-city development that many cities don't have.
• In terms of Albany's similarities to other cities, the obvious major issue is our concentration of vacant and abandoned properties. Luckily, Mallach wrote the book on dealing with them, so he should be able to offer some good advice.

Clearly, this is not exhaustive or even necessarily representative of what they will decide the SDAT's can focus on. But it's always interesting to hear people's first thoughts. If you're not a lifelong resident, what were your first impressions of Albany? What would you show a visitor if you had only a couple hours and wanted them to appreciate the city?

T-t-t-t-tech Valley!

The recent announcement about Sematech's relocation to Albany clearly has the potential to be good news in terms of the region's overall economy. Presuming it follows through with the move and projected job additions at least.

How good the news is, however, depends a lot on how well we plan for the impacts—in the city, and regionally. This is good time to remember that Austin managed to grow dramatically while not improving the economic situation of its most vulnerable citizens very much. Many of the companies who came to town found themselves floundering for workers while the unemployment rate in many poor areas didn't decline. So the first thing we need to do is commit to training, job supports, investment in k-12 science education and mentoring, transit improvements, local hiring agreements and anything else that will help our current residents benefit from as many of the new jobs as possible. Bringing people and organizations with this kind of expertise into the Tech Valley development process as soon as possible is crucial.

Some have said that 120,000 people followed Sematech to the Austin region. If we could home grow a portion of the talent they will need here and cut our poverty rate down in the process, we'd have all of the benefits without so much of the sprawl and traffic congestion. This is a vision worth working hard for.

Speaking of sprawl, our center cities can certainly absorb some new residents. But will they go there? And if they do, will the people who were already there be able to afford to stay? These are good questions to get to ask after years of losing population, no doubt. But the time to ask them is now, because they are so much harder to address after the fact.

Luckily, Albany's about to start a planning process. Along with economic incluson, the following items should be on the agenda anyway, but this news increases their priority:    

• Affordable housing development and long-term affordability controls, like land trusts. (Burlington, Vermont has a great land trust example).
• Stabilizing and supporting existing small businesses that serve a range of incomes and needs.
• Regional incentives to combat sprawl and benefit all of our municipalities (outlying municipalities don't actually benefit if they lose all their open space and become a traffic nightmare).
• Fix-it First. Our aging infrastructure needs attention, and we shouldn't be tempted to build new stuff before we attend to that.

This is just a preliminary list. More to come, of course, as we learn more.

Sustainable Design Assessment Team: Overview

Last November, Albany's planning department applied (pdf file) to the American Institute of Architects' Sustainable Design Assessment Team program.

The AIA describes the mission of the program like this: "The collaborative SDAT program brings together architects and other professionals assembled from across the country to provide a roadmap for communities seeking to improve their sustainability - as defined by a communities (sic) ability to meet the environmental, economic, and social equity needs of today without reducing the ability of future generations to meet their needs."

The program consists of three major steps. First, there's an initial visit with an AIA staffer and a nationally recognized expert. They tour the city and meet with a bunch of folks to get an idea of what kind of expertise the city could use. (For example, do they need a hydrologist or a transit planner or . . .)
A couple months later the assembled team makes their own visit, which mostly centers around a charette for the public to attend and generate solutions with the help of the experts. The team then delivers a final report and some follow up consultation based on the charette. Nothing binding comes out of it, but the idea is that it allows the city to draw upon some ideas from elsewhere and have some help figuring out to apply them here. Albany, like many small cities, can be astoundingly parochial when it comes to learning from the successes (or failures) of others, so this is a Good Thing.

Of course if it were just that, it wouldn't be very likely to create much change. But when it's used in conjunction with/as a kick-off for a comprehensive planning process, as Albany intends, the potential to carry that momentum forward into implementation gets much higher. Two of our western Massachusetts neighbors did this recently.

Not surprisingly, skepticism of outside experts coming in an giving their opinion has already been expressed. "I'm interested, yet skeptical, will need to push for more grassroots and community involvement, not just corporate and political leadership. But sounds hopeful either way," wrote Jessica Oppenheimer of Youth Organics! in an e-mail message responding to the announcement of the grant.

Alan Mallach, research director of the National Housing Institute, made the SDAT preliminary assessment for Albany on April 11.  (Disclosure: NHI is a client and former employer of mine.) He emphasizes that they use the charette format, which is basically an intense working meeting in which participants generate ideas and engage in back and forth discussion, rather than just listening and commenting, to ensure that the results come from the community and the experts together, rather than being imposed from outside. If they follow through with that promise, it could perhaps be a model for the comprehensive planning process.

They expect the charette to be some time this summer. I will post the details as soon as I know them.

Enabled

Last night the Common Council passed the amended enabling legislation setting up a comprehensive plan board, 13 to 1 with one absent.

The final text was:

A few thoughts on the enabling legislation

Councilwoman Cathy Fahey rounded up her own summary of the last Planning Committee meeting by writing "Though, I was not completely satisfied with the outcome, the legislation is adequate and I plan to vote in favor of it at the May 7 Council meeting."

So it seems likely that the legislation will pass. After all, it's very rare for the council not to pass something that a committee recommended for passage. (Once upon it time it was rare for anyone to vote against anything . . .)

This should not mean that anyone should avoid coming to make comments if they have them. Because the legislation is leaving a lot up in the air, the way the new board will operate is still subject to discussion.

The one main point that has been under contention and will actually be decided in this legislation is that four city employees—the chief of police, the commissioner of development and planning, the commissioner of general services and the director of Albany Community Development Agency—and one appointee, a member of the planning board, will be voting members of the new board.

Many people have questioned both why employees who should be expected to be working on this process as part of their jobs also get to being voting members, and others have questioned why these people in particular; why the police chief for example, as opposed to, say, the commissioner of the Department of Recreation or a member of the Water Board.

These are good questions to ask, and I don't know that there is one perfect answer. There is at least one good reason that I haven't heard mentioned to have these people involved directly: Like anyone else, they are more likely to cooperate with implementing a plan that they feel bought-in to. And you need their cooperation to implement one, especially if you want to get into any changes beyond a simple land-use plan. That shouldn't trump public control of the process, but it's a good subordinate goal.

On the other hand, as many people have said, even the appearance of any back-room dealing or bias could compromise the process by turning people off. There are plenty of people who feel that the presence of city employees might do that.

I understand this, and even sympathize with it somewhat, but I have a couple countervailing thoughts: First, if this process is limited only to people who have set opinions about the trustworthiness of various portions of city government, then it will have been far too narrow.

And second, a planning process should be about working together. It's not about formulating two competing camps and arm-twisting people to vote for one or the other. Decisions should be made by as near to consensus as possible. So while there will likely be conflict and disagreement, and I would be reluctant to file this under the same model as much of the rest of what happens/has happened in this city. Rather, I want to see whoever is on this board enter into a process so open that even if they're used to cutting back-room deals, horse-trading, power-broking or currying favor, that there is no space for it. That would be a far greater success in my mind than flexing the might of the Common Council by keeping all members of the administration off the board.

A while back I was involved in some of the large direct-action protests that followed the one at the World Trade Organization meeting in Seattle in 1999. We knew that our meetings were going to be infiltrated by police. Rather than set ourselves on a futile mission of trying to be more and more secretive and exclusive so that wouldn't happen, or constantly accusing people of being infiltrators, we went the other route, doing everything completely out in the open. It was better for our souls and better for our results.

I'm pretty sure that the people who hold this concern, like Councilwoman Fahey, are not going to abandon the process if the legislation passes as is. That, at least, is clearly the right answer.

How to make a public comment

If you want to comment at tonight's, or any other, common council meeting, here are your options:

You can sign up ahead of time, either by callingthe Albany City Clerk at 434-5090 before noon on the day of the meeting, or by getting there early and filling out a form. People who sign up are called on first.

Or you can wait and after all the people who signed up have been called, the Common Council president will ask if anyone else wants to speak and will call people from the audience. You will be asked to give your name and address (a request people often ignore) and to keep your comments to 5 minutes, less if there are a lot of people. You may bring a printout of your comments to have entered into the public record. Just hand it to the person taking notes after you're done speaking.

 

(Clarification: The rules are different for public hearings.  People do not sign up. There is usually no time limit on a public hearing and people can speak as long as they want.  Public hearings are usually held prior to the Public Comment Period. Tonight is not a hearing. Thanks, Lynne.)

It Takes Thousands

The Times Union didn't actually have a reporter at the April 24th Planning Committee meeting, so perhaps they can be forgiven for not quite getting the point, but after hearing so many people emphasize how open a process this should be, it was amusing for me to see that their post about it on their Local Politics blog (which, if I'm not mistaken was their first mention of the issue) was titled "It Takes 30 People to Make a Plan."  I hate headline writing (and have sometimes written about the results of meetings I didn't attend), so I shouldn't throw stones, but perhaps I can throw jelly beans or pillows or something?

This board will not make the plan; it will guide the planning process and ensure that as many people as possible get to help make the plan. No one involved should ever be allowed to forget that.